Biblical PROOF that Jesus Christ IS GOD

by Bibleboy 156 Replies latest watchtower bible

pomegranate

Philippians 2:5-11
5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature[1] God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature[2] of a servant, being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-- even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
>>In otherwords, Jesus Humbled himself for OUR sake; In order to save us. The bible says that He returned to His place in heaven and has deity.<<
You speak true. Please note that Christ in his prehuman Divine nature did NOT think equality with the Father was something to be grasped. He was God, yet willfully subordinate to the Father. Common trinity teaching form the Nicene era is coequal, copowerful etc. That is NOT true. Christ is submissive to the supreme Father than and now.
I also want to paint another picture for you in regard to Satan. If Christ was in fact in the NATURE of God, if there was anyone that had a RIGHT to be equal to the Father it would be he, as God is his nature. Now, let's think about Satan. He being a creature thought it NO PROBLEM to assume equality with God on his own. The contrast of Satan and Christ is dramatic.
Satan thought so much of himself he went to the top by his own assumption. Christ who was in the nature God, went totally the opposite way. All the way to the very bottom. Dead.
>>Even on earth He called himself God. He was refering to 'YHWH' (Tetragrammaton) when He said the following words:
John 8:58-59
58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.<<
I have no problem with this text referencing himself as YHWH. I believe Christ to be YHWH. But I also believe the Father to be YHWH too. They are of the same nature. A divided spirit body.
>>Interesting enough as it says in Philippians 2:10-11 that every knee shall bow and tongue confess Jesus Christ is Lord, it also says the same about God the Father in Isaiah 45;<<
I believe that the text in Isaiah is refering to the Son. I believe the Father has done absolutely nothing besides two things. Initial creation, and resurrecting Jesus from the dead. The rest has been ALL Jesus. EVERYTHING was given over to Jesus by the Father right from the beginning.
Matt 11:27
27 "All things have been committed to me by my Father.
John 13:2-3
3 Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power,
>>with God the Father also declaring that HE is the ONLY SAVIOUR.<<
The whole Bible is Jesus. The Father gave ALL THINGS over to the Son. Every time YHWH speaks in the OT, it was the Word of God that answered. Jesus was/is ALL the WORDS of God of the OT. It is NOT the Father. Something else:
How about God the Father is so manificent and uncomprehendable, that He COULD NOT get invloved with this problem of Satan? He gave it to the Son to rectify...
>>>Now tell me, how can ANYONE be saved through Jesus Christ (Saviour in the New Testament) if Jesus Christ is not God given the following biblical evidence?:
Isaiah 45:22-24
22 "Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other.
23 By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear.
24 They will say of me, `In the LORD alone are righteousness and strength.'" All who have raged against him will come to him and be put to shame.<<
I agree that the Savior in Isaiah is Jesus. I also believe that the Savior in Isaiah is NOT the Father. ALL things were given to Jesus. ALL. Including the Bible. It is his. The Father just looks on as his Son slowly brings all things back under him. From Genesis forward.
>>>Jesus Christ did not give up his deity entirely or forever. remember John 8:58-59 which I quoted earlier? Also, the following scripture helps to support that.<<
Actually, Jesus returned to his Deity with more than He had when he left. As it is written:
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,
For Jesus to have the highest place would mean he to be at the top. BUT, that would NOT mean over the Father. It would be side by side. The phrase "sit at my right hand" denotes that equality, that he NEVER thought about grasping prior to his humanity. The Father has given the reward to His Son of "King for a Day" so to speak. That is what this text is all about:
1 Cor 15:27-28
27 For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
Christ is EQUAL in power (NOT in headship), by the Fathers permission, till all things have been rectified. Then after ALL things have been accomplished Christ goes back into his position of subjection to the Father, as He was in the beginning.
>>Pom, I said that the "IMAGE" of God was "body soul and spirit."<<
I cannot see that in the Bible.
>>Please forgive me. BUT, I know that God DID CREATE humans to be tripart beings.<<
No need for forgiveness. We are learning together. I agree God created us as tri-part beings, one seen, TWO UNSEEN. I can not deny that fact. But there is nowhere the Bible brings this fact together with image and likeness the way male and femle are in Genesis right in the beginning. Which is where you'd expext an explaination of the image and likeness comment, right from where it is mentioned and in the same paragraph.
>>While it does NOT say that it is the IMAGE of God. It DOES say that we ARE INDEED tripart beings. There is not three of us but ONE of us made of three parts. An apple has three parts, skin, flesh and core, but it is STILL ONE APPLE.<<
You also have to just look into a mirror to see on the outside, you are a walking two. Two eyes, lips, ears, arms, legs, etc. Then the inside, lungs, testicles, kidneys, intestines, ovaries, heart (two pumps in one), brain (two hemispheres working together), liver (two lobed organ) etc etc.
dubla

hairdog-
let me first just say, LOL. your posts are beginning to humor me almost as much as your dense fellow trinitarian mark whitmore. aside from that, i guess ill respond to a few things here real quick......
quote: Me: By golly, Mr. aa, I think you got me there. Silly old (very old, by the way) me. I just naturally assumed that, since it was indicated as a reply to my post that it was directed towards me. Man, do I owe you an apology. Sure am sorry ‘bout that.
-okay hairdog, (which btw, is that your name or are you still just as "anonymous" as you made frenchy out to be? or were you just making a fool out of yourself with the anonymous thing because you failed to see that the writer indeed had a name just the same as the rest of us, but just didnt sign the bottom?), how was it indicated as a reply to "your" post any more than ANY of the other posters on this thread considering the title of EVERY post on here is in reply to marks first post, specifically: Re: Biblical PROOF that Jesus Christ IS GOD? nevertheless, i think i still did end up granting you that leeway, so its really a mute point.
quote: Oh, by the way. A synonym for “preconceived opinion” is eisegesis (and, by the way, it’s in the dictionary).
-um, yeah, we got that already. i think weve all figured out that constant definitions of exegete, exegesis, eisegesis, etc, etc, are going to be expected in all of your posts. which we all enjoy, it really hammers home frenchy points about the way trinitarians dwell on grammar instead of reasoning. your knowledge on these particular words, though interesting, once again lends next to nothing on the matter at hand. its merely a way for you to say (in lamens terms): "the way i go about discovering/arguing, is better than the way you do." great, we get it.
quote: John 1:1 does not provide proof for the doctrine of the trinity. “Evidence” means something that provides testimony that aids in ascertaining the truth of a matter. It is a “beginning;” not completely conclusive. John 1:1 gives me evidence.
-okay hairy, i already posted the definition of "evidence", (showing the contradiction in your statement "evidence, not proof", an idea you continue to spout), but if i must, here it is again. color it redundant if you will. (hint: look closely for synonymity of the words "prove/proof" and "evidence". its really not that difficult.) These are from "one of your favorite secular writings, websters dictionary", i added bold lettering to assist you.
evidence (v):To render evident or clear; to PROVE
evidence (n):that which furnishes, or tends to furnish PROOF;
any mode of PROOF
okay, now that ive once again exposed that particular contradiction, you didnt reply to the first contradiction i posted, so ill repost it here as well (again, excuse the redundancy, but you obviously pick and choose what you respond to, which is normal for a debater that stands on weak "legs" so to speak "proof" wise).
ill put my repeats in brackets to make it easier. sigh, deep breath, here we go.......
MY quote: [quote (in response to me): I never intended to say that the verb, “was,” proved the eternal existence of the Word (Jesus).
-okay, now lets cross reference this with your last post.....
quote (in response to frenchy, or the anonymous one): This morning, as I was reading in one of my favorite secular writings, Webster’s Dictionary, I thought that I might take a look at the word, “was.” It seems that “was” is indicated to be the English “past indicative” of the verb, “to be.” In layman’s language, it refers to the existence of someone, or -thing. The past indicative is used in the English translation of John 1:1, while in the Greek, the imperfect indicative is used. In both languages, the mood of the verb is identified as the “indicative.” This is the mood of certainty. So the action or state described by the particular indicative mood verb is one of certainty; in the case of the verb, “was,” it is certain that (in the case here in John 1:1), the Word’s state was one of being. The Greek language has several “past” tenses. The imperfect tense indicates durative action in the past. Therefore, the state of the Word is not only certain, but it is certain that He “continually” was; that He continually existed.
-hmmmm....seems to me for not using the word "was" as proof he eternally existed, youre going way out of your way to say that the verb "was" proves he continually existed (or are continually and eternally two different ideas for you?)..........]
again, id like to repost another one of my statements, and maybe youll choose to respond, or maybe you have nothing to say. here we go AGAIN.......
MY quote: [quote: The use of “was” in this verse simply lends information that points out that anything that existed before the beginning had no beginning. The heavens, earth, animals, angels and satan all are created beings. Therefore, they had a beginning.
-does this one verb "was" really imply that hairdog? that ANYTHING that existed before "the beginning" (which we already have agreed in a past post is "the beginning" described in genesis chapter 1), had no beginning? so in this account of "the beginning" (genesis ch.1), why are there no mention of angels being created? were they created during "the beginning" then, or are they already present as it would seem? and what of jesus being one of the angels (michael)? of course, this is what i believe, and since youve already said all the angels were created, on this basis i guess we have already agreed that jesus was created. maybe until we agree on whether or not jesus is michael, we should go no further, for this no doubt is part of your preconceived opinions on jesus himself, also leading you in a certain direction with 1john1:1. do you see where this "preconceived opinions" idea can take a discussion?
i realize you dont want to drop the "was" issue until i concede that your viewpoint on it is the correct one, so maybe we will not get past it (or maybe its the one thing you cling too, and you have no logical reasoning for any of the other arguments).]
whew....now, on to ONE last quote, this time a quote from you in your last post.....
quote: I appreciate the opportunity to give evidence, as provided by John 1:1, that the Word is the eternal Being.
-be honest here hairy, you just threw this in because i mentioned it and discounted it as garbage before, right? i mean come on, the post that you tagged this ending onto was entirely just an argumentative post trying to scramble and respond to me exposing your OBVIOUS contradictions, and it had NOTHING to do with giving "evidence, as provided by john 1:1, that the word is the eternal being." its an attempt at humor, i see. again, let me say, LOL.
aa
dubla

bibleBOY-
quote: there's nothing wrong with quoting somebody that you are in agreement and unity with.
God Bless!
-true mark, theres nothing wrong with quoting someone youre in agreement with, i couldnt agree more with you. just dont provide it as a source of proof/evidence. and i understand its much easier for you to argue the trinity by merely restating someone elses arguments. hell, that would be easier for any of us wouldnt it? as a matter of fact, i think thats what you were implying possibly when you first said, and again i quote:
"question: are you getting your arguements from God's Word, (the bible)or are you getting them from the watchtower?(or elsewhere for that matter?)"
so what did this mean mark? does not this same reasoning apply to you, or are you immune to your own reasoning? in other words mark, we should feel free to start quoting the watchtower if indeed we are in agreement with it? (which i am not btw). well hell, then why did you ask this silly question (quoted above) in the first place?? im pretty sure it was to imply that people were posting ideas that were really just restatements of someone elses arguments (watchtower, etc.). once again mark, you show your ignorance.
aa
dubla

hairdog-
one more thing....ill quote you first....
quote: Ah, yes, Mr. aa, “exegete” in English sure enough is a noun. Gosh, I fell into my old habit of using a Greek verb to express myself. Once again, I made a boo-boo.
-no problem, i can see where the mistake was made. it just doesnt quite fit though that someone as literate and knowledgeable on diction, as yourself, would make such an obvious blunder (especially considering that the websters dictionary is "one of your favorite secular writings"). and if we are all to believe how passionate you are on the matter, you might want to just pre-qualify your statements by saying something along the lines of "once in awhile im planning on interjecting greek words throughout my sentences, right along side the english words", then you might want to add footnotes with definitions of the greek words youll be using, as i am not knowledgeable on greek grammar/vocabulary/diction (as ive stated many times), and im sure there are others on here as well that arent avid scholars on the matter.
I appreciate the opportunity to give evidence, as provided by one of hairdogs favorite secular writings, that evidence and proof are one and the same.
aa
dubla

bibleBOY-
quote: An apple has three parts, skin, flesh and core, but it is STILL ONE APPLE.
-question: what about the seeds and stem?
aa
Bibleboy

jdubla,
Peace of the Lord be with you.
I have come to understand that you don't want to or not argue constructively on the point that whether Jesus is God or not. Therefore I am not considering your arguements until you come in peace and stop arguing savagely about my style and pointing out everything wrong about me personally. Rather, please focus on the point of the conversation and be constructive. I understand that you're probably cynical, but that gives you no right to throw stones at a man who's imperfect if your not perfect yourself.
I rather enjoy Pomegranates discussion and wish to go in the direction of HIS discussion because it is quite fascinating.
Pomegranate, do you think that you could expand on what you believe? I have never heard that point of view and find it interesting to listen to.
however, if you want to get technical jdubla, the seeds belong to the core and the stem belongs to the tree on which the Apple grew. it's important to remember that I didn't say the Apple WAS God.
In Love Peace and Joy.
dubla

bibleBOY-
quote: I have come to understand that you don't want to or not argue constructively on the point that whether Jesus is God or not. Therefore I am not considering your arguements until you come in peace and stop arguing savagely about my style and pointing out everything wrong about me personally.
-okay mark, first off, i have indeed been discussing whether or not jesus is god from the very beginning. if you look back over the posts youll find contradictions and logical reasoning backing anti-trinity beliefs from myself and many other posters. the reason ive quit trying to argue these points with you is because youve ignored every single fact or idea ive pointed out in the subject (so yeah, it gets a little old talking to a wall with no response). thats great that you find poms view interesting and have decided to discuss it (despite the lack of requisite information from pom, age, location, belief), and no one elses. what this says to me mark, is that you choose to ignore what you cannont effectively debate.
as far as me "arguing savagely" about your style, and "pointing out everything wrong" about you personally, that i will address. number one, pointing out your constant evident ignorance on topics that YOU are debating, is not a personal attack. when i make your ignorance evident (whether it be debate style or content), it is merely attacking the validity of your arguments (not you personally, for i do not even know you), which is what an argument/discussion is all about! so if you cannot handle someone attacking the validity of your claims, i suggest you refrain from ever discussing something as controversial as the trinity period.
as far as you refusing to "consider" my arguments, well hell mark, youve been doing that from the very beginning, so i wouldnt expect any less.
aa
Hairdog1937

Dear, dear Mr. aa:
You said:
“…i think weve all figured out that constant definitions of exegete, exegesis, eisegesis, etc, etc, are going to be expected in all of your posts. which we all enjoy, it really hammers home frenchy points about the way trinitarians dwell on grammar instead of reasoning.”
Well, by golly aa, I think you are right. It seems to be rather important that for us to successfully communicate with one another, we must first define words that we use. And one of the best places to look for these definitions is in our English and Greek dictionaries, eh? But of course if you have another word source, please let me know what it is so that we can both be operating from the same authoritative source. Does that sound (pardon the pun) reasonable? While I await your response, I shall continue to turn to my favorite secular source, the dictionary published for the English language by Webster and various Greek lexicons, O.K? Therefore, notice the following definitions:
Reasoning: the drawing of inferences or conclusions through the use of reason.
Reason (v.): To use reason to influence one’s opinions.
Reason (n): a rational ground or motive; a sufficient ground of explanation (sufficient to whom?) or of logical defense.
First, let me say that the REASON I am defining “reason” as above is because that’s what is listed in Webster’s. It’s not my definition; it’s his. And because he is a credible authority, I use him. But if you can give me a good “reason” to look elsewhere, I’ll listen to what you have to say. After all, I’m sure you would have a good “reason” to select something else besides an English dictionary, eh?
Secondly, when two people wish to debate an issue, and use “reason” as the debating tool, unless they use the same authoritative source as the grounds for their “reasoning,” they will not be able to agree upon whatever it is that they are trying to debate (in order to come to an agreement). In the issue you and I are debating, we are working towards understanding what light, if any, John 1:1 sheds on the deity of the Word. Since we are trying to arrive at a decision over the meaning of words, the authoritative source would seem to be language. Since the original language of the subject verse is koine Greek, IT is the authoritative source. It cannot be anything else since anything else would be to say, “I don’t care what the meaning of the words are. I know what I know, and what I know has greater “reasoning” power than the meaning of the words.” That is not a very “rational” (a.k.a. “reasonable”) attitude, is it? Certainly it will not allow for objective understanding. It is, logically (and Scriptural as well), foolishness.
You said many things to which I am tempted to respond. I don’t normally do this because I think one issue at a time is the best systematic way to approach an issue. Nevertheless, let me at least respond to a couple of things: first, the definitions you gave for “evidence” and “proof.” Let me quote your definitions:
“evidence (v):To render evident or clear; to PROVE
evidence (n):that which furnishes, or tends to furnish PROOF;
any mode of PROOF”
Please observe (as I’m fairly certain you already did) that there is more than one meaning to the word, “evidence.” It can mean “to prove” and it can also mean “that which…'TENDS' to furnish proof.” When I use the two words, I am applying the latter definition to “evidence” in order to distinguish it from “proof.” I hope that you now understand where I am coming from. Sometimes – no – many times we humans fail to properly communicate with one another, thereby creating great difficulties. May this comment serve to clarify what I meant.
Second (and finally), before the beginning (Genesis 1:1; John 1:1), only God existed. This is clear from John 1:3; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:16. Therefore, the angels, Michael and satan included, were created “in the beginning.” WHEN in the beginning? I don’t know. The Bible doesn’t say.
In closing, I appreciate the opportunity to give evidence, as provided by John 1:1, that the Word is the eternal Being. Based upon the definitions of “evidence,” you should be able to (finally) see that this is not a humorous statement; it’s reasoning based upon the Bible.
Hairdog
pomegranate

BB,
I'm twice as old as you, plus two.
42, male, outside Boston. Belief? God and the Bible.
>>>Pomegranate, do you think that you could expand on what you believe? I have never heard that point of view and find it interesting to listen to.<<<
In order to do that, we need to go back to BEFORE the beginning of physical creation. We need to reason on the start of all things from the spiritual side of the curtain, because that is where the problem began.
I would start here:
There was God in heaven, and legions of created spiritual creatures with Him, and everything was GOOD. It will be highly important to understand the circumstances at this point in time accurately, because this is the foundation for everything to follow.
From here, I would start introducing questions and premises on what likely happened prior to Genesis 1:1, just from logical reasoning.
Remember, there is presently NO REBELLION in heaven...OK??
The first question I would ask myself is this:
Was God OMNISCIENT (All knowing) at this point in time BEFORE Satan rebelled?
I have to say to myself NO absolutely NOT for two logical reasons, God and Satan. THEY are the two reasons you ask?? Well, yes. Let's start with reasoning on the God angle. I will only use one thought pattern here, but there are more to help prove that God would not have KNOWN evil before Satanic rebellion.
IF God were omniscient at this point in time (before Satan's rebellion), that would mean He knew Satan was going to be evil BEFORE Satan in fact was evil. If that is true (God's omniscience), then that would also mean that God knew Satan was going to be evil even BEFORE God created Satan's life form. If that is true (God's omniscience), then that means the source of all evil is DIRCETLY from inside God HIMSELF, meaning God "knew" evil BEFORE it existed, meaning He is the Creator of evil and created evil into existence by forming the life of Satan. BUT....Scripture says this regarding any "evil/darkness" in God:
1 John 1:5-6
5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.
To me, it seems quite evident from this pattern of reasoning, that God was NOT omniscient BEFORE Satan left the way of Love, because if He was, God is Evil Himself. People who have faith in God know NOTHING evil was in or came out of God. If that is an accepted belief of ones faith, then they also have to reason that God was not omniscient before Satanic rebellion.
Now, Satan's side:
I'm NOT stupid. Neither is Satan. With that in mind, how stupid would someone have to be to rebell against A God that was omniscient. I mean, how can ANYONE even for the slightest split second think they could supercede God's will with their own will if God already had them out smarted and out thought to the point of already having the rebel "six feet under?" I'm no where near the intellectual capacity of an angel, but I feel it's a no brainer that if Satan knew the power, he would have still been washing God's floors.
So, from boths sides PRIOR to the rebellion, this line of reasoning to me points to a time that God was NOT omniscient, and God knew not the even conceptualized SMALLEST SEED of evil. There was NO SUCH THING AS EVIL in God's "mind" nor did He have the slightest seed of a hint that a being that He would create, would be responsible for the concept and creation of evil at a future time. Basically, it is something God could NOT even understand, UNTIL it hit Him smack dab in the face.
I believe one has to understand this basic scenario before building further understanding. We have to realize that evil does NOT have it's source in God. In order for that to be true, God could NOT have forknown it, which means before Satan, he was not Omniscient. As you reason on omniscience more, I think you will find omniscience is a power God created as a defense mechanism against the evil that was created by Satan. When there is all good and no bad, no omniscience. When there is both Good and bad, omniscience is one of the tools God created to GUARANTEE his will be done and Satan's will be thwarted.
OK. Reason on the above. Questions? Ask em. Comments? Say em. You want me to go on? Let me know.
PS. Maybe you wanna start a new thread on this?
Eyebrow

What about this:
There is just one God, with three personalities, God himself, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. So basically, the Creator has some form of schizophrenia?
That could explain the gaps in the bible and why Jesus keeps praying to somebody he does not realize is him?
I think Cybil should be contacted and questioned about this.
Trinity....thought up hundreds and hundreds of years after Jesus walked the earth...some many other pagan religions had some form of trinity, why not apply it to Christianity?
As for words being changed and left out, Bibleboy, do you think that the NWT is the ONLY bible that does not have perfect translation??

Biblical PROOF that Jesus Christ IS GOD

Share this